Made available now, when they are still tied up in paying subscriptions? If you are not talking about double-dipping, Ian, then you need to explain where this double-funding is meant to come from, and why, before the decline? (For the decline itself will be what releases the requisite funds, if and when it happens.)If we can agree that wide-spread archiving will mean that established subscription income will decline, then surely funds have to be unambiguously made available for the only other show in town: author-side payment.
We can't have it both ways and say that subscriptions will still pay the bills AND that cancellations (and hence cost savings) are inevitable.But we *can* say that if and when subscriptions are cancelled, universities will have the windfall savings out of which to pay the bills in the new way. (And the cost-cutting and downsizing are just as likely as the cancellations; indeed, they are the flip side of the very same coin.)
As regards "double-dipping", it is important not to conflate the issues for an individual journal or research institution with those of the system as a whole.Agreed. But am I doing the conflating, Ian, or are you? An individual university's self-archiving mandate (like Southampton's) has nothing to do with either an individual journal (whether subscription or Gold OA) or the system as a whole.
I don't believe that the PLoS journals could be accused of double-dipping,Certainly not, but what does that have to do with university self-archiving mandates?
nor journals that reduce their subscription prices in line with the number of articles published under an author-side payment system.Ian, I regret that not only would I never recommend buying-in to such a price lock-in system, but I do not for a moment believe that any journal is sincerely putting it into practice. It is just a notion. McDonald's could make the same offer, that if their clients' employers agree to buy into Gold Open Access burgers, free for all, they'll reduce the selling price to their clients proportionately.
Why should PLoS lose out because Southampton University (for example) refuses to cover author-side payment fees?With respect, I cannot see at all how PLoS is losing out because Southampton is mandating self-archiving for its own research output! Those researchers who can afford to publish in PLoS today, and wish to, can and will.
I am asking institutions not to mandate deposit of research that has been peer-reviewed by a journal, yes, because it is parasitic on the journals system (irrespective of business model) and I do not see how they can claim the right to do so.And I say it will only be parasitic if and when subscriptions collapse, should institutions then still refuse to pay for publication. (But then of course the parasite will perish, because it will not be able to publish, unless it is ready to use some of its windfall subscription savings to pay for it.)
As I have said repeatedly in this exchange so long as the system is paying for the certification elements of scholarly exchange I have no problem.Well, the system is indeed still paying for it, Ian, so I have no choice but to conclude that you have no problem!